'T 


CANADIAN  RECIPROCITY. 


*>■»<■.  f.,» *,^4 


WHY  SOME   CANADIANS  WANT   RECIPROCITY. 
WHY  ENGLISHMEN  WANT  IT.     WHY     ,. 
WE   DON'T   WANT  IT. 


I'  .fi 


Published  by  The  American  Iron  ami  Steel  Association,  at  No.  2G5  South  Fourth 
Street,  Philadelphia,  at  which  place  copies  of  this  trad  may  be  had  on  appli- 
cation by  letter,  i,  ...  ; .      '  ,  r 


RECIPROCITY  WITH  CANADA— A  REVIEW. 

To  the  Editor  of  The  Boston  Commercial  Bulletin:  >'    r  ; 

A  zollverein  between  Canada,  as  a  Britisli  colony,  and  the  United 
States,  which  would  be  an  arrangement  for  the  same  custom-liouse 
duties  in  both  countries,  the  proceeds  to  be  pooled  and  divided  by 
the  rule  of  population,  or  some  other  agreed  rule,  will  come  when 
the  millennium  comes,  and  not  one  day  sooner.  It  is  totally  incon- 
sistent with  the  present  relations  of  Canada  with  Great  Britain, 
and  is  scouted  as  impossible  by  all  English  and  Dominion  authori- 
ties. It  will  become  possible  when  Canada  becomes  independent, 
and  even  in  that  event,  although  possible,  it  is  far  less  probable  than 
annexation,  and,  at  any  rate,  it  would  inevitably  lead  to  annexation. 

The  treaty  of  1854  was,  in  substance,  an  arrangement  for  the 
introduction  into  this  country  of  the  raw  products  of  Canadian 
forests,  mines,  and  agriculture,  free  of  duty.  In  form,  it  provided 
for  a  reciprocal  freedom  of  duty,  that  is  to  say,  for  an  equally 
unimpeded  introduction  into  Canada  of  the  similar  raw  products  of 
the  United  States.  But,  in  fact,  by  an  established  and  inevitable 
course  of  trade,  the  movement  of  these  products  was  substantially 
all  one  way,  from  Canada  and  into  the  United  States.  The  reci- 
procity was  a  diplomatic  flourish  of  words.    No  treaty  was  necessary 


V  ' 


3  RECirROCITY    WITH    CANADA — A     KEVIKW. 


at  all.  The  whole  thing  might  have  been  as  well  accouiplished 
by  au  act  of  Cougress  exeiuj)ting  these  Canadian  products  from 
duty. 

The  treaty  of  1854  contained  certain  (so-called)  equivalents  for 
us,  in  fishery  privileges  and  in  the  free  navigation  of  the  St.  Law- 
rence canals  and  river,  both  of  them  shams,  and  the  last-named  so 
palpable  a  sham  that  the  pertinacity  with  which  it  has  been  talked 
and  written  about  is  truly  amazing.  Nothing  is  clearer  or  more 
certain  than  that  the  St.  Lawrence  canals  will  be  closed  to  us  in  time 
of  war,  and  that  the  Canadians  will  be  only  too  happy  to  keep  them 
open  for  us  in  time  of  peace,  so  long  as  we  will  pay  the  same  tolls 
which  their  own  people  pay.  It  is  for  tolls  and  business  that  canals 
are  built,  and  Canada  would  even  be  willing  to  pay  a  round  sum 
every  year  if  the  entire  carriage  of  the  products  of  our  interior  States 
to  the  Atlantic  Ocean  could  be  diverted  to  the  St.  Lawrence  route. 

But,  whether  shams  or  realities,  these  privileges  of  fishing  and 
navigation  on  the  St.  Lawrence  canals  and  river  are  disposed  of  in 
the  treaties  negotiated  by  the  Joint  High  Commission,  and  can  no 
longer  be  made  to  perform  any  duty,  useful  or  ornamental,  as  make- 
weights in  reciprocity  arrangements  with  Canada. 

It  was  commonly  said,  after  the  treaty  of  1854  was  abrogated, 
that,  although  that  was  objectionable  and  indefensible,  a  treaty 
might  be  negotiated,  giving  us  equivalents  in  the  introduction  into 
Canada  duty-free  of  various  articles  of  manufacture,  and  thus  con- 
verting a  ofle-sided  arrangement  into  one  of  real  reciprocity.  It  was 
the  reiteration  of  these  ideas  which  led  finally  to  the  last  reciprocity 
treaty,  whic'  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  refused  to  ratify,  and 
which,  ilie  resulting  discussions  and  developments  here,  in  Great 
Britain,  and  Canada,  show  conclusively  never  can  be  ratified  by  any 
of  the  parties  concerned. 

The  fii-st  result  of  the  publication  of  that  treaty  was  the  call  upon 
the  British  ministry  of  deputations  of  English  manufacturers  and 
English  merchants,  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  treaty 
made  in  terms  no  provision  for  the  free  introduction  into  Canada  of 
the  same  manufactured  articles  from  Great  Britain,  proposed  to  be 
admitted  free  from  the  United  States.  The  reply  of  the  British 
ministry  was  that  that  was  a  matter  between  England  and  Canada, 
not  necessary  or  even  fit  to  be  incorporated  into  a  treaty  with  the 
United  States,  and  that  the  introduction  of  P^nglish  manufactures 
into  Canada  on  as  good  terms  as  might  be  allowed  to  any  other 
country  resulted  from  the  nature  of  the  political  connection  between 


KJiClPROCITY    WITH    CANADA — A    RKVIEW. 


England  and  Canada,  and  (sould  never  be  a  matter  of  question. 
And  this  view  was  immediately  admitted  by  the  Canadian  authori- 
ties to  be  correct.  The  delusion  that  C'anada,  a  non-manufacturing 
country,  might  become  a  groat  market  for  our  manufactures,  was 
thus  ruthlessly  exploded  at  the  very  start.  We  could  go  there,  to 
be  sure,  but  only  in  unrestricted  competition  with  English  manufac- 
turers, and  with  the  advantage  in  their  favor  of  long-established 
mercantile  relations. 

Nor  was  this  the  whole  of  it  or  the  worst  of  it.  The  treaty  only 
provided  for  the  free  introduction  into  the  United  States  of  articles 
of  Canadian  manufacture,  a  competition  which  our  manufacturers 
did  not  much  dread.  But  how  to  distinguish  articles  of  British 
manufacture  from  articles  of  Canadian  manufacture  was  seen  to  be 
a  problem  of  no  small  difficulty,  on  a  land  frontier  line  of  three 
thousand  miles,  and  it  was  seen  also  that  compound  articles  might 
be  of  Canadian  manufacture  within  the  true  meaning  of  the  treaty, 
although  parts  of  these  might  be  of  British  manufacture.  It  was 
seen,  in  short,  that  to  admit  articles  of  Canadian  manufacture  free 
of  duty  was  an  unpleasant  approximation  to  a  repeal  of  our  tariff  on 
the  same  articles  of  British  manufacture. 

If  these  discoverias  were  distasteful  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  they  were,  in  other  respects,  equally  so  to  the  Canadians. 
Instead  of  competition  with  the  United  States  only,  they  saw  that 
their  ports  were  to  be  opened  to  English  goods,  to  the  ruin  of  their 
revenue  and  the  destruction  of  their  infant  and  struggling  manu- 
facturing industries.  They  had  no  opportunity  to  act  on  the 
treaty,  as  they  were  forestalled  in  that  by  its  summary  repudiation 
by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  but  it  is  to-day  certain  that  no 
treaty  containing  any  such  application  to  American  manufactures 
as  is  found  in  the  fancy  sketches  of  Gen.  Ward,  of  New  York,  can 
be  negotiated  or  ratified  with  them.  It  is  as  purely  a  thing  of  the 
imagination  as  his  zollverein  between  Canada  and  the  United 
States. 

The  country  may  be  deluded  into  expressions  favorable  to  re- 
ciprocity by  hopes  of  opening  Canada  to  American  manufactures, 
but  such  hopes  can  never  be  realized  so  long  as  Canada  retains  its 
British  connection,  or,  if  realized,  only  at  the  peril  of  destroying 
our  tariff  on  English  manufactures,  and  multiplying  the  frauds 
and  costs  of  the  long  line  of  custom-houses  on  our  northern  and 
eastern  land  frontier.  George  M.  Weston. 

Boston,  May  30,  1876. 


DO    WK    WANT    UECiritOClTY   WITH    CANADA  'i 


DO  WE  WANT  RECIPROCITY  WITH  CANADA? 

Frmn  The  lionton  CommercuU  Bulletin. 

The  reciprocity  discussion  is  continued  below  in  another  commu- 
nication from  our  original  correspondent,  Mr.  Weston.  This  time, 
it  will  be  seen,  he  examines  the  question  from  a  new  standpoint. 
Leaving  out  of  account  the  difficulty  of  negotiating  an  ecjuitable 
treaty,  owing  to  the  political  relations  between  Great  Britain,  Can- 
ada, and  the  Unitetl  Ktates,  he  argues  that  the  purchasing  of  raw 
products  in  Canada  would  not  lead  to  an  increase  in  trade,  but 
would  simply  be  a  diversion  of  trade  from  the  West — from  customers 
who  in  return  buy  most  of  their  wares  from  us,  to  customers  who 
may  not  buy  anything  from  us  in  return. 

To  the  Editor  of  The  Commercial  Bulletin  : 

No  increase  of  trade  results  from  buying  raw  products  in  Canada 
rather  than  at  home.  To  do  that  is  to  buy  so  much  more  in  one 
place,  and  just  so  much  less  in  another.  If  we,  of  Massachusetts, 
conclude  to  purchase  a  million  bushels  of  potatoes  from  New  Bruns- 
wick, which  we  now  purchase  from  Maine  and  Vermont,  we  may  or 
may  not  obtain  them  for  less  money  or  get  a  better  quality  of  pota- 
toes. But,  at  all  events,  there  is  no  increase  of  trade.  As  the 
power  to  purchase,  which  nations  or  individuals  possess,  depends 
upon  the  amount  they  have  to  sell,  it  is  certainly  true  that  New 
Brunswick,  with  a  new  market  for  a  million  bushels  of  potatoes, 
would  have  so  much  more  money  wherewith  to  buy  of  us  or  of 
somebody  else.  But  it  is  just  as  certainly  true  that  Maine  and 
Vermont,  after  losing  an  equal  market,  would  have  so  much  less 
money  wherewith  to  buy. 

It  is  undoubtedly  possible,  by  legislation  judiciously  adapted  to 
that  end,  to  transfer  to  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  in  a  large  dtnjree, 
the  supplying  of  this  country  not  only  with  potatoes,  but  with  hay, 
butter,  cheese,  timber,  and  perhaps  beef.  To  do  that  would  be  to 
increase  the  population  and  wealth  of  Canada,  and,  from  its  aug- 
mented capacity  to  buy,  we  might  or  might  not  reap  the  sole  advan- 
tage. But,  at  the  best,  there  would  be  for  us  no  increase  of  trade, 
as  our  own  farmers  and  lumbermen,  having  this  market  cut  off  in 
an  exactly  corresponding  degree,  would  be  by  so  much  disabled 
from  buying.  It  is  much  more  certain  that  our  own  farmers  and 
lumbermen  would  buy  of  us,  to  the  extent  of  their  sales  and  ability 
to  buy,  than  that  Canada  would  do  so.     In  dealing  with  our  own 


DO    WK    WANT    UKOirKOCITY    WITH    CANADA? 


people  we  have  the  advantage  of  tariffs,  proximity,  settled  habits, 
and  connnc'tlonH  of  trade. 

The  old  idea  of  conuncrce  was  barter,  or  exehange  of  commodities. 
In  modern  times  commerce  is  carried  on  with  money,  and  people 
buy,  not  where  they  sell,  or  of  those  to  whom  they  sell,  but  where 
they  really  can,  or  think  they  can,  buy  to  the  best  advantage.  No 
matter  how  much  timber  or  hay  the  Canadians  may  sell  us,  they 
will  buy  where  they  are  accustomed  to  buy,  or  can  buy  chca{)est, 
when  it  comes  to  spejuding  their  money  for  cotton  cloth  or  iron  ware. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  we  could  sell  more  to  the  countries 
south  of  us,  if  we  would  buy  more  from  them.  That  would  have 
no  tendency  to  effect  the  object.  What  we  need  is  to  produce 
cheaply  enough  the  articles  they  want,  but  most  of  all,  and  what 
we  shall  have  in  due  time,  a  class  of  merchants  with  the  enterprise 
and  capital  to  pu.sh  trading  ventures  with  all  parts  of  the  world. 

Our  own  commerce  is  full  of  illustrations  of  the  truth  that  na- 
tions do  not  buy  where  they  sell.  We  purchase  raw  products  on 
an  enormous  scale  of  Cuba  and  Brazil,  and  sell  comparatively  little 
to  either,  and  Brazil  does  not  buy  of  us  one  dollar  the  more  be- 
cause we  have  exempted  coffee  from  duty.  The  merchants  in  Rio 
Janeiro  and  Havana  who  sell  coffee  and  sugar  sell  for  cash  or  ex- 
change on  Loudon,  and  know  nothing  and  care  nothing  about  the 
operations' of  other  merchants  in  the  same  cities,  who  buy  broad- 
cloths, machinery,  or  piano-fortes.  In  our  trade  with  Great  Britain 
we  sell  more  than  we  buy.  The  English  pui'chase  our  wheat  and 
cotton  because  they  need  those  articles,  and  would  purchase  just  the 
same  if  we  did  not  buy  a  penny's  worth  in  turn  from  them.  They 
pay  cash  for  cotton  and  wheat,  and  obtain  that  wherewith  to  pay  as 
they  can,  and  by  disposing  of  their  own  wares  wherever  they  can 
find  a  market. 

By  buying  of  Canadians,  rather  than  of  our  own  people,  timber 
and  agricultural  produce,  we  diminish  by  so  much  the  wealth  and 
population  of  this  country,  and  by  so  much  a  trade  we  now  have 
with  the  home  producers  of  those  articles.  We  may  or  may  not 
gain  something  by  getting  the  same  articles  for  less  money.  What 
we  lose  in  trade  with  home  producers  we  may  gain  by  enlarged 
trade  with  Canadian  producers,  but  there  is  not  the  slightest  proba- 
bility of  it.  And,  until  it  can  be  shown  that  there  is,  the  Canadian 
reciprocity  scheme  has  nothing  to  stand  upon.  It  will  not  be  suffi- 
cient to  demonstrate  what  is  already  plain  enough,  that  the  more 
Canada  sells  the  more  Canada  can  buy.     It  must  be  demonstrated 


6  RECIPROCITY    WITH   CANADA    A    DELUSION. 


also  that,  out  of  a  nullion  dollars  more  to  spend  by  reason  of  soiling 
us  that  additional  (juantity  of  hay  and  potatoes,  Canada  will  expend 
in  our  nii  rkets  a  sufficient  proportion  to  indemnify  us  for  the  loss  of 
a  trade  of  a  million  dollars  .vith  our  own  farmers.  And  this  must 
be  demonstrated,  taking  into  account  the  fact,  of  which  there  is  no 
question,  that  Canada  can  admit  no  article  from  the  United  States 
without  duty,  or  with  only  a  low  duty,  without  giving  exactly  the 
same  privilege  of  admission  to  the  same  article  from  Great  Britain. 
Boston,  June  14,  1876.  Georgia  M.  Wehton. 

RECIPROCITY  WITH  CANADA  A  DELUSION. 

From  The  Boston  Cornmercinl  Bulletin,  July  39th. 

The  vigorous  communication  below,  designed  to  prove  the  fallacy 
of  the  assumption  that  Canadian  reciprocity  would  be  of  advantage 
to  our  industrial  interests,  we  commend  to  the  careful  consideration 
of  those  manufacturers  who  have  recently  been  coquetting  with  this 
reciprocity  idea.  Undoubtedly  nearly  all  our  New  England  in- 
terests, at  least,  would  be  considerably  benefited  at  first  by  the 
adoption  of  free  trade  with  the  Dominion,  but,  as  our  correspondent 
points  out,  the  ultimate  injury  to  us  would  vastly  more  than  out- 
weigh this  temporary  gain. 

It  begins  to  be  more  and  more  aj)parent  that,  however  great  the 
temptation  may  be  in  special  cases,  no  protectionist  can,  with  con- 
sistency, support  reciprocity  with  any  country,  any  more  than  he 
can  consistently  call  for  free  trade  in  his  raw  material  at  the  same 
time  that  he  advocates  the  imposition  of  duties  upon  his  manufac- 
tures. 

To  the  Editor  of  The  Commercial  Bulletin  : 

It  is  assumed  as  certain  that  we  should  gain  by  a  reciprocal  free 
trade  with  Canada  in  manufactures,  and  that  this  would  be  a  fair 
compensation  for  what  Canada  might  gain  by  a  reciprocal  free  trade 
in  raw  materials.  This  is  doubtless  true  in  the  present  condition 
of  things,  the  United  States  being  much  the  more  advanced  in  manu- 
factures, but  how  long  would  it  continue  to  be  so,  with  reciprocity 
fixed  by  treaty  for  a  considerable  term  of  years?  Canada  has  great 
advantages  as  a  manufacturing  country — an  invigorating  climate, 
cheap  labor,  low  taxes,  and  ample  water-power.  It  lacks  capital 
and  trained  skill,  but  they  both  abound  and  superabound  in  England, 
and  they  are  both  of  them  mobile  in  their  nature.  What  is  to  pre- 
vent their  prompt  transfer  and  upon  a  great  scale  from  England  to 


RKfll'ItOCITY   WITH    CANADA   A   DKLU8ION. 


Cann(la,  if  t<i  tlic  Inttor  la  sertirod  f'roo  jifoosg  to  flio  market.''  of  a 
rapidly-growing  nation,  already  numbering  tbrty-t'oiir  millions  of 
people? 

We  have  seen  in  recent  years  an  enormous  transfer  of  British 
capital  to  cotton  mills  in  India.  Bombay,  whctre  the  first  one  was 
built,  in  ISO,*?,  has  now  mills  enoujjh  to  consume  aruiualiy  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand  bales  of  cotton,  and  more  than  half  this 
growth  is  within  three  years.  This  is  going  to  the  antipodes  to  in- 
vest money,  and  to  a  country  with  many  elements  of  insecurity, 
social  and  political.  J"]very  mill  in  Bombiiy  is  built  over  a  mine  of 
gunpowder.  The  investment  may  pay  before  the  explosion  comes, 
and  it  may  never  come,  but  the  gunpowd'r  is  there.  It  is  not 
twenty  years  back  to  the  Sepoy  rebellion.  It  is  a  long  line  from  the 
docks  of  England  to  India.  To  strengthen  it  at  Suez,  a  British 
minister,  with  the  ready  approval  of  the  British  nation,  has  just 
paid  S2(),000,000,  and  at  this  moment  the  British  ironclads  lie  at 
the  Dardanelles,  ready  on  the  instai\t  for  a  death  grapple  with 
Russia,  to  uphold  British  power  in  India  by  keeping  the  road  open 
by  the  Red  S(.'a. 

The  Englishmen  have  built  cotton  mills  in  Bombay,  not  to  get  a 
new  market,  but  to  supply  an  old  market  at  a  better  profit,  and 
every  mill  they  have  built  there  is  in  competition  with  mills  already 
existing  at  home.  How  long  will  they  hesitate  about  building 
mills  in  Canada,  with  such  a  near  market  as  the  United  States  free 
and  open  under  a  reciprocity  treaty,  which  unconstitutionally  sus- 
pends, for  the  term  of  it,  the  inherent  power  of  Congress  to  impose 
duties?  Bombay  is  remote;  Canada  is  near.  Bombay  is  alien  in 
race,  language,  religion,  and  (ilimate;  Canada  is,  in  all  these  par- 
ticulars, only  another  Great  Britain  of  ten  days'  sail  across  the  sea. 
Bombay  is  subject  to  internal  convulsions  and  to  foreign  intrigues, 
and  is  held,  at  best,  upon  the  indispensable  condition  of  the  British 
command  of  the  ocean;  Canada,  as  a  field  for  tho  investment  of 
capital,  has  every  element  of  social  and  political  stability  for  a 
period  beyond  thy  reach  of  human  foresight. 

With  reciprocity.  New  Brunswick  is  beyond  comparison  a  better 
field  for  cotton  mills  than  Maine.  Their  water-powers  are  nearer  to 
the  tide  at  Le  Preux  and  numerous  other  points  on  the  Bay  of 
Fuudy.  Coal  is  cheaper,  labor  is  cheaper,  and  above  all  general 
and  local  taxes  are  comparatively  light.  National  feeling  would 
carry  the  Englishman  to  New  Brunswick  if  t\\^  chances  were  only 
equal,  but  the  truth  is  that  they  are  so  unequal  aiul  so  wholly  in 


RECIPROCITY    WITH    CANADA    A    DKMWION. 


favor  of  the  HritiMh  province,  that  tho  American  capitalist  would 
go  there  in  preference  to  going  to  Maine.  On  the  water-power  of 
the  (lividinj^  river,  the  St.  Croix,  which,  in  the  conihined  piirticularH 
of  nuigiiitiiiU',  Mifety,  HteiulinesH,  an*i  tiivorahh;  po.sition,  is  not  Hur- 
piisHcd  in  America,  tliero  is  no  capitalist,  British  or  Ani'^rican,  who 
would  not  huild  u  cotton  mill  by  choice  ou  the  British  side,  with 
reciprocity  as  an  established  policy.         ,  '   '    ^  -' 

What  would  be  true  of  cotton  would  be  true  of  other  manufac- 
tures, and  peculiarly,  perhaps,  of  iron.  Fn  New  Brunswick  and 
Nova  Scotia,  the  ores  are  in  abundance  and  in  close  proximity  to 
fuel  and  the  needed  fluxes.  That  industry  is  undeveloped  there 
because  the  free  importation  of  British  iron  has  crushed  it  out.  But 
give  to  those  provinces,  for  their  iron  wares,  the  American  markets, 
and  the  business  would  become  great,  not  by  degrees,  but  at  a  single 
bound.  Iron  and  iron  wares  could  be  produced  more  cheaply  than 
in  Peiuisylvuiiin.  For  the  supply  of  New  England,  freights  are 
less  than  from  Pennsylvania,  and  they  would  not  be  higher  for  the 
West  and  Northwest  by  the  way  of  Montreal  after  the  Welland 
Caiuil  is  enlarged.  Nothing  would  be  lacking  but  capital,  and 
hundreds  of  British  ironmasters,  now  struggling  with  hopeless  diffi- 
culties, would  hasten  to  this  new  and  Inviting  field. 

The  difhculty  with  Canada  now  is  that  it  has  no  markets.  If 
commanding  its  own  by  a  protective  tariff,  as  it  might  but  does  not, 
the  market  would  be  small  at  the  best  and  with  all  the  precarious- 
ness  and  fluctuations  of  such  a  market.  But,  with  an  outlet  so  vast 
and  so  expanding  as  the  United  States,  it  would  utilize  all  its  ad- 
vantages of  climate,  cheap  labor,  aiul  access  to  English  capital. 
The  dream  of  finding  in  Canada  only  a  c(mvenient  market  for 
manufactures  under  reciprocity  is  one  from  which  we  should  speedily 
awake  to  the  reality  of  having  given  to  British  capital  and  trained 
skill  the  opportunity  to  plant  themselves  in  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments along  the  three  thousand  miles  of  our  northern  and  north- 
eastern frontiers,  and,  with  the  advantage  of  cheaper  labor  and 
taxes,  to  sa[)  our  revenues  and  monopolize  our  markets. 

American  as  well  as  English  manufacturers  would  transfer  their 
operations  to  Canada  on  a  large  scale,  and  for  the  simple  reason 
that,  preserving  the  same  market  on  this  side  of  the  line,  they  could 
produce  many  things  cheaper.  Precisely  that  would  happen  in 
manufactures  which  happened  in  raw  materials  under  the  reciprocity 
treaty  of  1854.  Then  it  was  Americans,  rather  than  Canadians, 
who  started  sawmills  in  Canada  to  supply  the  United  States  with 


WHY   OANAIJIANH    WANT    Ki;C!U'liO<;rrY. 


lumbor,  uikI  wlio  iiivewttxl  ciipitul  in  the  coal  miiios  of  Nf)va  k'-otia 
and  Cupt!  JJrt'ton  to  supply  the  United  Stuten  with  coal.  The  last 
fact  Boston  known  to  itj4  coxt.  It  m  profit  and  not  pattiotitmi  wiiich 
governs  investmentH.  The  national  taxes  in  this  country  alwolutely 
re(|uir(!d  by  our  national  debt,  and  the  loeal  taxes  actually  levied, 
are  enormous  in  coniparirton  with  (-'aniulian  burden.s,  and  thcH!  taxes 
are  unav()i<lal)le  eleinents  in  ihe  cost  of  coninioditieM  and  the  price 
of  labor.  With  reciprocity  the  manufacturer  can  escape  them  by 
simply  cr()SHing  a  boundary  line,  gaining  a  good  deal  and  losing 
uothing.  It  is  not  politics  which  will  prevent  this  lugira  of  Ameri- 
cans. If  A.  G.  I'hi'lps  Dodge,  who  left  New  York,  and  is,  or  lately 
was,  a  :nend)er  of  tlu?  Canadian  I'arliainciit,  is  to  Iw  beli«!ved,  the 
rich  men  of  America  with  whom  he  had  associated,  and  of  whom 
he  had  been  one,  prefer  a  constitutional  i.-.onarchy  to  a  republic. 

(jrKOK(iK    M.   WkhTON. 


WHY  CANADIANS  WANT  KECiriiOCITY. 

They  can  speak  for  themselves  "  Canada,  so  situated  (with  re- 
ciprocity) that  xhe  will  have  all  the  ndvnntages  of  being  a  State  in  the 
American  Union,  and  all  the  advantages  of  British  connection,  without 
any  of  the  dinad vantages  of  either  country,  will  be  in  a  most  happy 
position.  Enjoying  free  access  to  the  two  best  markets  in  the  world, 
without  any  of  their  burdens  to  bear,  will  make  C^anada  about  the  best 
country  to  emigrate  to  on  the  face  of  the  earth." — Ontario  lieformer. 

"The  best  and  greatest  commercial  blessing  that  heaven  could 
send.  It  nieans  85  on  a  cow,  $25  on  a  horse,  $2  on  a  hog,  25  cents 
on  a  turkey,  12  cents  on  a  chicken,  $2  on  a  ton  of  hay,  15  cents  on 
barley,  and  25  cents  on  wheat.  It  means  the  opening  of  the  largest 
and  best  shipbuilding  business  that  Canada  ever  saw,  and  the  resur- 
rection of  old  Quebec.  It  means  building  schooners  and  barges  at 
every  port  on  lakes  Erie  and  Ontario,  and  good  wages  for  ships 
and  sailors;  the  highest  price  for  everything  the  (Dominion)  farmer 
sells,  and  the  lowest  price  for  all  of  the  goods  lie  buys!" — Hon. 
Malcolm  Cameron  to  Toronto  Globe. 

"  I  am  more  convinced  now  than  ever  that  in  the  port  of  Quebec 
must  eventually  centre  the  whole  commerce  of  the  country.  Not 
merely  has  Quebec  the  convenient  situation  and  the  vast  area 
necessary  for  the  accommodation  of  all  our  own  transport,  but  also 
for  that  of  the  long  tier  of  the  Northern  United  States,  which  stretch 


10  WHY   CANADIANS   WANT    RECIPROCITY. 


along  our  border.  We  are  now  making  great  efforts  to  extend  the 
commercial  advantages  we  possess  by  the  renewal  of  the  reciprocity 
treaty  with  our  neighbor.  While  it  is  of  course  impossible  that  all 
can  gain  every  advantage  they  each  desire  in  the  matter,  I  am  per- 
fectly satisfied  that  Quebec  will  reap  enormous  advantages  over  all 
other  places  under  the  proposed  measure,  which  will  no  doubt  greatly 
extend  our  trade  relations  on  both  sides  of  the  line." — Speech  of 
Hon.  A.  Mackenzie,  Dominion  Prime  Minister. 

"  Here  are  extracts  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  W.  E.  Hanford,  of 
Sauford,  Vail  &  Bickley,  wholesale  clothiers,  Hamilton: — 'We  em- 
ploy a  capital  of  over  $500,000.  Our  employes  number  over  one 
thousand.  We  can  obtain  as  much  labor  in  Canada  as  we  wi.sh  ;  if 
we  had  reciprocity  or  free  trade  with  the  United  States  we  would  be 
pleased,  as  we  are  confident  we  would  be  enabled  to  clean  out  our 
warehouse  in  sixty  days.'  Mr.  Sauford  is  evidently  not  afraid  of 
being  ruined  by  a  market  of  forty  million  people  being  thrown  open 
to  his  firm,  nor  is  Mr.  E.  Gurney,  stove  founder,  Toronto,  who 
says: — 'If  the  tariff  arr»ugoment  were  reciprocal,  we  could  enter 
their  (the  American)  territory.' " — Halifax  Chronicle. 

The  Ottawa  Citizen,  November  27,  1874,  says  thai  Mr.  Rathbone, 
of  Mill  Point,  a  leading  lumberman,  spoke  to  a  meeting  of  lumber- 
men in  Ottawa,  and  impressed  on  them  the  importance  of  the  treaty 
to  their  trade  and  their  country. 

Canadians  want  reciprocity  because  it  will  relieve  them  of  the 
payment  of  duties  on  their  raw  products  which  are  sent  to  this 
country.  ■  -  '■  ,\.   ■'..'■■;■:'    >:„•■''     ..■'■,;.,.•,.■;■  ; 

"  The  crop  of  wheat  iu  the  United  States  is  officially  estimated  at 
two  hundred  and  forty  millions  of  bushels.  We,  as  a  Dominion, 
imported  more  wheat  and  flour  than  we  exported  in  1872,  as  per  our 
government  official  returns.  It  is,  therefore,  very  evident  that  we 
could  not  influence  in  the  least  degree  the  market  price  of  wheat  in 
the  United  States,  and  that  if  we  send  our  wheat  there  we  lote  the 
duty.  The  proportion  of  our  surplus  of  horses,  cattle,  sheep,  and 
wool  to  the  amount  they  consume  is  so  very  small  that  it  is  equally 
plain  that  we  can  not  influence  the  price  in  their  market,  and  that 
ive  lose  the  duty.  The  Americans  consumed  last  year  nearly  forty 
million  bushels  of  barley,  of  which  we  gave  about  one-tenth.  If  one- 
tenth  can  control  the  market  pric<i,  then  we  can  dictate  the  price  of 
barley  in  the  United  States,  and  compel  the  consumer  to  pay  the 
duty.     We  think  that  our  farmers  lose  the  duty  on  barley,  or  at  least 


WHY    ENGLAND    WANTS    RECIPROCITY.  11 


the  greater  part  of  it.  The  American  people  north  of  the  Ohio  con- 
sume not  less  than  eight  thousand  million  feet  of  pine  lumber  per 
annum,  of  which  we  gave  them  not  to  exceed  seven  hundred  mil- 
lions in  any  year,  or  about  one-eleventh.  The  city  of  Chicago  alone 
annually  receives  more  lumber  than  we  export  to  all  coun*^  ies.  We 
supply  a  large  proportion  of  the  peas  consumed  in  the  United  States, 
and  we  think  that  the  consumer  of  them  pays  the  duty,  but  this  is 
the  only  natural  product,  whether  from  the  farm,  forest,  mine,  or  sea, 
which  we  export  to  the  United  States  in  such  quantities  as  will  enable 
us  to  compel  the  consumer  to  pay  the  duty." —  Ontario  Reformer. 

"  With  practical  free  trade  with  England,  Canadian  manufacturers 
would  have  to  scale  down  the  prices  of  their  products,  or  go  to  the 
wall.  Some  would  be  compelled  to  follow  the  latter  course,  while 
others  would  survive,  but  to  do  this  they  would  be  compelled  to  cut 
down  the  price  of  labor  and  be  content  with  smaller  profits,  so  as  to 
reduce  values  to  a  point  where  they  could  compete  with  those  borne 
by  English  manufactured  goods.  With  free  trade  across  the  border, 
they  would  thus  be  able  to  lay  down  their  products  in  our  northern 
cities  at  prices  which  would  vary  but  little  from  the  cost  of  delivering 
English  goods  at  the  same  points,  duty  free.  Is  not  this  practically 
the  same  as  bringing  our  manufacturers  into  unprotected  competition 
with  the  cheap  labor  of  England?" — Boston  Commercial  Bulletin. 


'<,^. 


WHY  ENGLAND  WANTS  RECIPROCITY, 


"Reciprocity  over  our  northern  border  of  the  kind  proposed  is 
free  trade  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  Tlie  same  between  Canada 
and  England  is  free  trade  as  well,  and,  so  far  as  the  sale  of  our  prod- 
ucts in  the  Canadian  market  is  concerned,  the  result  would  be 
merely  to  bring  them  into  competition  with  those  of  the  cheap  labor 
of  England." — Commercial  Bulletin,  Boston.  .     ,  . 

"  Canada  wool  is,  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  to  be  admitted  to  our 
country  free  of  all  duty.  Wool  grown  all  over  the  world  would, 
under  such  a  treaty,  be  smuggled  through  Canada  in  immense 
quantities.  The  wools  produced  in  England  and  Ireland  are  so  like 
those  produced  in  Canada,  that  even  an  expert  ''  Id  not  detect 
them.  The  effect  of  the  treaty  would  be  to  establish  free  trade  in 
wool  and  woolen  goods  not  only  between  the  Dominion  of  Canada, 
but  between  England  and  the  United  States." — Protest  of  National 
Association  of  Wool-  Growers  of  the  United  States. 


12  WHY    ENGLAND   WANTS    RECIPROUITY. 


"  A  few  furnaces  in  Canada,  and  ivs  many  in  Nova  Scotia,  may  be 
made  to  cover  hundreds  of  thousands  of  British  pigs ;  a  dozen  steel 
and  iron  mills  in  like  manner  covering  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
tons  of  rails.  A  very  moderate  number  of  paper  mills  may  be  made 
to  cover  one  hundred  thousand  reams  of  paper.  Machinery  of  every 
kind,  coming  out  in  parts  ready  to  be  put  together  in  Canada,  must 
be  here  received  as  being  of  Canadian  manufacture." — H.  C.  Carey, 
Letter  to  President  Grant. 

"  We  do  not  see  the  slightest  hope  that  we  can  admit  United  States 
viannfadures  free  of  duty  and  yet  impose  a  duty  on  those  of  Great 
Britain." — Hamilton  Spectator  (  Ontario). 

In  London  (England),  November  27th,  Lord  Derby  assured  the 
delegates  from  fifty-two  Chambers  of  Commerce  that  no  differential 
duties  against  them  and  in  our  favor  would  follow  the  treaty. 

"  The  extcL'sion  of  the  free  list  to  such  an  extent  in  manufactured 
goods  necessitates  the  formal  declaration  made  in  memorandum  of 
negotiations  published  a  few  weeks  ago,  to  the  effect  that  whatever 
we  admit  free  coming  from  the  States  must  also  be  free  coming  from 
Enyland.  In  spite  of  all  the  publicity  that  has  been  giveu  to  this 
feature  of  the  treaty — or  connected  with  it,  as  we  should  say,  for  it 
does  not  appear  in  the  treaty  at  all — the  public  generally  are  but 
beginning  to  find  out  that  free  trade  with  England  as  well  as  the 
United  States  is  really  provided  for.  We  are  every  day  hearing  of 
influential,  generally  well-informed,  men,  who  say  that  the  fact  just 
stated  is  to  them  a  recent  revelation,  and  that  until  very  lately  they 
had  no  idea  that  a  treaty  witl^  the  United  States  carried  such  sweep- 
ing consquences.  They  say  that,  had  they  known  it  sooner,  they 
would  have  been  heard  from  more  decidedly  on  the  question." — 
Toronto  Mail. 

"  As  for  the  British  provinces,  of  course  we  know  what  they  need 
and  what  they  hope  to  attain.  They  need — and  can  not  get  else- 
where— remunerative  markets  for  their  supplies  of  raw  produce. 
They  have  few  manufactures,  because  they  have  not  encouraged 
them,  and  have  no  local  demand  that  is  not  almost  wholly  supplied 
by  Great  Britain.  How  then  can  opening  their  markets  to  our 
manufactures  benefit  us?  Clearly  there  is  another  purpose  in  mind, 
which  is  the  establishment  in  Canada  of  manufactures  substantially 
British,  the  transfer  of  British  capital  and  machinery  to  our  fror- 
tier,  there  to  make  from  the  same  low-priced  materials,  as  in  Eng- 
land, all  the  goods  that  our  markets  in  the  future  will  take." — Hon. 
D.  J.  Morrell. 


WHY    ENGLAND   WANTS    RRCIPROCITY.  13 


"We  wish  well  to  Canada;  so  well  that  we  do  uot  wish  to  make 
her  industi'ially  dependent  on  tiie  United  States.  But  neither  do 
we  wish  her  to  help  to  make  us  industrially  dependent  upon  Eng- 
land."—P/o/.  i?.  i;.  r/iompso»i.      .    .1  ■  ,,      <    :  1 

"  It  is  not  denied  that  this  treaty,  if  ever  ratified,  will  materially 
interfere  with  the  revenues  of  this  country.  It  would  very  greatly 
encourage  the  erection  Avith  British  capital  of  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments in  Canada,  which  would  be  supplied  free  of  duty  with  raw 
materials  from  Great  Britain  and  other  countries.  The  manufac- 
tured products  of  these  establishments  would  be  introduced  duty  free 
into  this  country  ?.nd  sold  in  competition  alike  with  the  duty-paying 
manufactured  products  of  Europe  and  with  such  manufactured  prod- 
ucts of  our  own  country  as  are  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  im- 
ported duty-paying  raw  materials.  The  importing  trade  of  our  chief 
seaboard  cities  would  be  transferred  to  Montreal  and  other  Canadian 
cities.  There  would  be  a  diversion  to  the  St.  Lawrence  of  a  large 
part  of  our  carrying  tra  le.  Thus  would  our  revenues  be  reduced 
by  the  transfer  of  impoits  to  the  Dominion,  and  our  commercial 
importance  would  be  dealt  a  serious  blow.  Admitting  what  is  not 
admissible,  that  the  manufactured  goods  of  Great  Britain  would  not 
be  smuggled  into  this  country  as  if  they  were  Canadian  products, 
England  would  nevertheless,  through  the  transfer  of  its  workshops, 
be  brought  to  our  very  doors,  with  its  abundant  capital,  its  skilled 
and  cheap  labor,  and  its  long  manufacturing  experience.  We  would 
at  last  have  free  trade  vath  our  rival,  and  the  statesman  Cox's  idea 
of  abolishing  all  our  custom-houses  would  be  in  course  of  realiza- 
tion. Is  all  this  desirable?" — Bulletin  of  The  Jmerican  Iron  and 
Steel  Association. 

In  the  London  Contemporary  Review,  for  January,  1877,  we  find 
the  following  frank  confession  of  the  advantages  of  commercial  or 
reciprocity  treaties  to  the  nations  which  seek  to  have  them  estab- 
lished. We  know  of  no  more  persistent  advocates  of  these  treaties 
than  England  and  her  Canadian  colonies: 

"It  is  curious  how  the  traders,  while  denying  protection  to  pro- 
ducers, can,  in  that  remarkable  manner  in  which  extremes  are  made 
to  touch,  find  political  reasons  for  seeking  advantage's  in  national 
trade  which  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  proclaimed  principle 
of  perfectly  unshackled  and  unfavored  commercial  intercourse. 
There  is  not  a  single  commercial  treaty,  from  that  negotiated  with 
France  by  Mr.  Cobden,  or  the  first  Reciprocity  Treaty  between  the 
United  States  and  Canada,  downwards,  which  is  not  in  spirit  at 


14  WHY    ENGLAND   WAN'JH    KliCIPKOClTY, 


variance  with  the  priuciples  of  free  trade.  They  mean  nothing  at 
all  if  they  were  not  meant  to  secure  advantages  to  the  nations  enter- 
ing into  them,  which  other  nations  would  not  enjoy.  If  they  do  not 
create  a  preference  for  commercial  dealings  with  ourselves,  purchased 
by  a  concession  of  something  which  is  thought  by  the  other  party  to 
be  equivalent,  then  they  have  no  raison  d'etre.  And  this  preference 
and  this  concession  are  nothing  less  than  protection  and  differential 
duties  under  other  names." 

"England  has  been  emphatically  assured  by  the  Canadian  prime 
minister,  the  Canadian  plenipotentiary,  and,  lastly  and  most 
strongly,  by  Lord  Dufferin,  in  his  speech  at  Chicago,  that  Canada 
will  not  consent  to  a  differential  arrangement,  to  the  prejudice  of 
the  mother  country.  In  other  words,  what  the  United  States  is  per- 
mitted to  hnport  into  Canada  at  specific  duty  "  free  of  duty,  that  also 
it  will  be  arranged  may  be  imported  from  the  United  Kingdom  on  pre- 
cisely the  same  terms.  Weil,  then,  shall  not  our  iron  and  hardware 
manufacturers  go  up  and  possess  the  land?" — Sheffield  Telegraph 
(England). 

"Our  serious  advice  to  our  manufacturers  is:  Leave  no  stone 
unturned  to  take  the  leading  position  in  the  Canadian  markets 
when  the  reciprocity  treaty  is  ratified.  Send  to  the  New  Dominion 
the  best  specimens  of  your  manufacture,  and  charge  the  lowest  prac- 
ticable price,  because  in  so  doing  you  will  be  hastening  the  down- 
fall of  American  monopoly,  and,  by  your  excellent  workmanship 
and  reasonable  charges  in  the  smaller  markets  of  Canada,  throwing 
open  for  yourselves  the  larger  and  almost  unlimited  market  of  the 
American  Union,  and  obtaining  a  foothold  there  from  which,  if  you 
act  with  sustained  energy  and  discretion,  you  can  never  be  driven." 
— Sheffield  Telegraph. 

The  argument  of  the  Sheffield  Telegraph  is  good.  Instead  of  de- 
riving any  benefit  from  reciprocity  in  the  way  of  securing  a  larger 
market  for  our  manufactures  across  the  line,  we  should  find  our- 
selves exposed  to  a  sharper  competition  than  now  exists.  The 
Canadian  government  would  extend  us  no  privileges  which  are  not 
shared  by  the  manufacturers  of  the  mother  country,  and  with  the 
additional  stimulus  thus  given  to. trade  with  England,  we  should  be 
driven  from  the  Canadian  markets.  As  it  is  now,  we  manufacture 
a  very  large  part  of  the  hardware  and  metal  goods  imported  for  the 
Canadian  markets.  Notwithstanding  the  rates  of  duty  imposed, 
we  have  built  up  an  important  trade  with  the  Dominion  in  manu- 
factures of  iron,  especially  in  shelf  hardware.     During  the  past  two 


WHY    ENGLAND    WANTS    KECIPUOCITY.  16 


years  we  htive  been  able  to  uiKlerl)icl  tlie  JCiiglish  agents  by  from  ten 
to  twenty-five  per  cent.     The  diHerence  is  not  so  groat  at  this  time, 
owing  to  tlie  decline  in  coal  and  wages  in  England,  but  the  Ameri- 
can styles  and  patterns  remaia  more  popular  where  they  have  been 
introduced  and  more  generally  salable,  especially  wliere  no  preju- 
dice exists  for  the  English  and  against  American    manufactures. 
Among  the  classes  of  articles  of  American  make  now  well  estab- 
lished in  popular  favor  in  Canada  may  be  mentioned  saddlery  hard- 
ware, bronze  hardware,  and  imitation  bronze  (;(Jods  of  all  descrip- 
tions, cheap  table  and  pocket  cutlery,  house-furnishing  goods,  silver 
and  nickel-plated  wares,  scissors  and  shears,  and  shelf  hardware  in 
general.     Facility  of  transportation  by  rail  is  one  advantage  which 
has  helped   our  manufacturers  in   competing  for  Canadian   trade. 
We  know  of  one  instance  in  whicli  a  large  hardware  dealer  of  Ham- 
ilton, Ontario,  came  to  New  York  and  bought  several  large  bills  of 
goods.     Having  completed  his  purcha.ses  he  returned  home  by  rail, 
stopping  but  one  day  on  the  road,  and  when  he  reached  Hamilton 
he  found  the  goods  awaiting  him  there.     The  same  goods  could  not 
have  been  obtained  from  England  under  six  weeks  or  two  months. 
With  these  advantages  we  can  hold  our  own  in  competition  with 
Great  Britain  in  the  Canadian   markets.     Reciprocity  would  not 
help  us,  for  the  reasons  set  forth  by  the  Sheffield  Telegraph,  but  it 
Avould  have  precisely  the  opposite  effect.    The  British  manufacturers 
would  be  encouraged  to  send  large  quantities  of  goods  to  Canada /or 
the  United  States  market.     Throw  open  our  lake  ports  and  border 
towns  to  so-called  Canadian  manufactures,  and  we  should  be  flooded 
with  cheap  manufactures  from  Great   Britain.     Still  worse — for 
smuggling  could  be  stopped  only  by  maintaining  a  costly  detective 
system,  which  would   bring  the  government  no  revenue — British 
manufacturers  depending  upon  the  American  market  would  transfer 
their  skilled  labor  to   Canada,   where,   with  the  aid  of  improved 
American  machinery,  they  could  manufacture  for  this  market  under 
conditions  with  which  we  could  not  compete.    We  should  thus  build 
up  Canadian  manufactures  at  Jie  expense  of  our  own  industries; 
and  however  alluring  the  prospect  of  cheap  goods  may  now  seem  to 
those  who  can  not  reason  beyond  the  simple  proposition  that  it  is 
desirable  to  buy  what  you  need  to-day  as  cheap  as  possible,  without 
regard  to  to-morrow,  millions  would  curse  the  day  that  such  a  treaty 
was  ever  ratified.     No  friend  of  American  industry  needs  a  better 
argument  against  reciprocity  with  Canada  than  that    resented  in  its 
support  by  the  Sheffield    Telegraph. — Neiv  York  Iron  Age. 


IH  WIIKRK   THh   MONEY   COMK8    FROM. 


WHERE  THE  MONEY  COMES  FROM. 

We  cite  the  Snottish-Ainerican  Journal,  published  in  N(!W  York, 
on  the  29th  of  July,  18f)5,  as  authority  for  the  Htatenieut  that  the 
Congressional  votes  in  favor  of  the  so-called  "Reciprocity  Treaty" 
with  Canada  in  1854  were  secured  by  a  large  money  outlay,  and 
that  the  treaty  was  sustained  by  annual  subsidies  from  the  Cana- 
dian Government.     It  says : 

"That  system  WJis  introduced  by  Mr.  Hincks.  It  commenced  by 
an  expenditure  of  some  fifty  thousand  dollars.  It  went  on  growing 
and  expanding  every  year,  after  the  treaty  was  in  force,  for  the  last 
ten  years.  And  half  the  so-called  claims,  of  those  who  lent  their 
influence  to  get  the  treaty  passed,  are  not  paid  to-day. 

"  Mr.  Hincks  was  of  the  opinion  that  some  of  those  who  got  most 
of  the  first  outlay  of  money,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Washington, 
did  the  most  to  obstruct  the  passage  of  the  treaty,  so  that  they 
might  keep  up  the  yearly  supply  of  subsidies.  This  may  have  been 
an  unjust  and  uncharitable  judgment,  but  it  was  one  held  very 
decidedly  and  firmly  by  Mr.  Hincks.  Mr.  Gait,  profiting  by  the 
experience  of  his  predecessor,  thinks  it  better  to  see  what  can 
be  done  without  the  aid  of  direct  subsidies  from  the  Provincial 
Exchequer." 

At  the  time  this  statement  was  published,  Mr.  Gait,  with  Messrs. 
Rowland  and  Harvey,  of  the  Canadian  Government,  were  in  Wash- 
ington upon  a  mission  with  reference  to  reciprocity,  which  failed  of 
success,  perhaps  for  the  reason  that  it  was  not  sustained  by  direct 
subsidies  from  the  Provincial  Exchequer. 

When  Reciprocity  may  be  Desirable. — "That  we  will  wel- 
come the  Canadians  to  a  free  participation  in  the  advantages  of  our 
markets  when  they  are  prepared  to  be  partakers  of  our  burdens  and 
defenders  of  our  comrao--  nationality,  as  thereby  we  may  extend  the 
line  of  our  protective  dei  uses,  and  close  the  postern  through  which 
British  goods  now  surrepatiously  enter  our  territory. 

"  That  those  who  uesire  true  free  trade  with  Canada,  such  as  is 
enjoyed  by  the  diflTerent  States  of  a  common  country,  will  find  their 
hopes  frustrated  by  a  treaty  which  shall  permit  the  Canadians  to 
sell  their  natural  products  in  the  dearest  market  in  the  world  (the 
United  States),  while  buying  their  chief  manufactures  in  the  cheap- 
est (England)." — From  Resolutions  of  National  Association  of  Wool 
Manufacturers. 


